MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382343971 · doi:10.1002/ca.24085

What's in a name? Is an anatomical term only a name?

2023· review· en· W4382343971 on OpenAlex
Paul E. Neumann

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Anatomy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyMedicineTerm (time)AnatomyNomenclatureFasciaMeaning (existential)LinguisticsEpistemologyBiologyPhilosophyZoologyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of a standard terminology is to facilitate communication. Thus, changing the name of an anatomical structure or the meaning of an anatomical term undermines that aspiration and cuts connections with anatomy's long history. Two types of anatomical terms are the most vulnerable to logical arguments for revision-ones that are descriptive, but viewed, at least by some, as inaccurate, and ones that contain words that are polysemic or vague. A half dozen examples of each type are discussed, including ductus deferens, glandula seminalis, articulationes costochondrales, vulva and fascia. In general, traditional terms should be preserved, but judgments about which terms are traditional should be based on five centuries of modern anatomy, not just the past several decades.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.251
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it